Flood geology easily accounts for the formation of coal. It is the geologists method of preference actually.
44 comments
Coal can form pretty fast (in about a million years) under the right conditions; but in 8,000 - 10,000 years? I don't think so. And why, if there was this massive flood, would we end up with huge layers of the stuff, instead of plants being distributed throughout layers of mud and sand? And why is some of it lignite while other deposits are anthracite?
The geologist's preferred method is the drying up of swamps.
You know, printing Creationist science text-books would be a lot more enviro-friendly than "real" science text-books. All the Creationist text-books would be a mere 28 pages long, a savings of anywhere from 400 to 900 pages per book! Think of all the trees that wouldn't have to be killed.
Um...my geology prof in University would have an apoplectic fit if he read that. There is not one, single, solitary branch of legitimate science that "prefers" Biblical explanations for natural phenomena and formations.
I work for an international professional organization of petroleum engineers, people whose field closely parallels that of coal-mining geologists. And though I would know that A4C was wrong even without this experience, the thousands of peer-review articles I have read on the subject serve to underscore just how utterly, insanely wrong he is.
Why do fundies lie like this? Even if A4C really believes it, it's only because somebody said it and he bought it. Somebody, somewhere, lied in outright denial of reality for this -- and did it in the name of God. This is simply reprehensible -- unless it's because of mental illness, in which case it's mere delusion, which means it is just pathetic that nobody corrected the matter.
~David D.G.
I would like to share with you all, this commentary by Saint Augustine. It was written approximately in the year 400AD and just goes to show that these idiots have been around since the beginning of time.
" Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion."
Cerebulon: That is a fabulous passage to present to antiscientific fundies. Can you provide the source, please? Also, it seems surprisingly readable; is this a modern translation of his work in older language?
~David D.G.
David D.G., Saint Augustine wrote in Latin. Cerebulon must be quoting from a recent translation into modern English. I am pretty sure the passage is from the [i]Confessions[/i] (a fascinating read for many reasons), but I will let Cerebulon correct me if I am wrong.
The quote is from "The Literal Meaning of Genesis" (De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim). It is a translation by J. H. Taylor in 'Ancient Christian Writers', Newman Press, 1982, volume 41. I found the quote on a TalkOrigins board. I'm trying to track down the book in question. I've never read Agustine, but that quote makes me want to.
That's news to me. My closest friend is a geologist and works for one of the biggest mining companies in Australia. Strangely, he never mentioned anything about this "flood geology" of yours. Instead it seems that they use scientific instruments and a load of scientific research to find coal and other mineral deposits. Pulling stuff out of your ass only gets your hands dirty. Don't do it.
I've seen that quote from St. Augustine before, and I've been impressed by the rationality of it. If all christians followed his advice...this site would soon shut down.
And A4C, the geologists of the world want you to know that you're an ignorant fool. Deliberately ignorant, too--there were several people on that thread trying desperately to explain to A4C just how wrong he was, some of them geologists by profession. He successfully ignored all of their arguments as well as their data.
And something those versed in Geology working in the mining and tapping fields havent mentioned: When you're looking for Coal, Oil, Diamonds, Salt or Gold you do surveys, test digs to analyze the surface material and several levels down. Because these products have similar histories of formation and signs of these similarities will show up in surrounding materials.
There isn't Coal, Oil, Diamonds, Salt or Gold everywhere (as creationists do believe often) as flood theory proponants suggest.
Name one actual geologist who prefers the "flood model."
And while this stipulation may make it "unfair" to you it has to be one that went to a real, accredited college.
How big would the biosophere have to have been for all the oil and coal on the Earth to have formed from ONE event? I mean, all those plants and animals would have to have been alive at the same time and died within one year.
Or look at the White cliffs of Dover. How many life forms are represented by that pile of shells? If they all died and were deposited during Noah’s 600th year on Earth, the oceans would ahve been thicker than a stew.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.